Sarvadarshanasangraha 12.17

12.17

cintāṃ prakṛtasiddhyarthām upodghātaṃ pracakṣate/ iti/

But an objector may say, "Although a man who reads the simple text of the Veda may not attain to a knowledge of its meaning, still, as he who reads the Veda with its aṅgas, grammar, &c., may attain to this knowledge, the study of Mīmāṃsā will be useless." But this is not true: for even though he may attain to a simple knowledge of the literal meaning, all deeper investigation must depend on this kind of discussion. For instance, when it is said, "He offers anointed gravel," neither grammar nor nigama[8] nor nirukta will determine the true meaning that it is to be anointed with ghee and not with oil, &c.; it is only by a Mīmāṃsā discussion that the true meaning is unravelled from the rest of the passage, "Verily, ghee is brightness."[9] It is therefore established that the study of Mīmāṃsā is enjoined. Nor need it be supposed that this contradicts the passage of Smṛti, "Having read the Veda, let him bathe," which implies that he should now leave his teacher's house, and prohibits any further delay; as the words do not necessarily imply that the return to the paternal roof is to follow immediately on his having read the Veda, but only that it is to follow it at some time, and that both actions are to be done by the same person, just as we see in the common phrase, "Having bathed, he eats." Therefore from the purport of the injunction we conclude that the study of the Pūrva Mīmāṃsā Śāstra, consisting of a thousand "topics,"[10] is to be commenced. This topic is connected with the main subject of the Śāstra as being a subsidiary digression, as it is said, "They call that a subsidiary digression which helps to establish the main subject."[11]